Categories

Recommended Blogs

Menu

Recent Comments

The threat of language

Before Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, when a European male referred to himself he used the term ‘Christian’. Sometime during The Enlightenment the term ‘human’ was coined and came to be a replacement for ‘Christian’. This simple change of language empowered men to escape the grip of the church and to be free men beholden only to themselves and to the emerging concept of human rights. He was no longer Christian, he was human. Great power was used at this time. Not the power of Gods nor the power of armies, it was the power of language.

In time, the word ‘human’ came to embody western values. It was human to be a white, land owning, educated liberal who believed in market economics and a representative political process. It was inhuman to worship sticks and stones, have tribal scars and practice polygamy but importantly there were no laws against enslaving and murdering the inhuman. It was a simple trick of language but by defining human as western, a monopoly on the very word that in time came to be interpreted as ‘homo sapien’ was developed and the patent was owned by my ancestors.

At the same time that the word ‘human’ was coming to mean western man, the west was involved in an open opposition to Islam, it discovered seemingly primitive people in the New World and was undergoing an explosion of knowledge during the enlightenment. All these successes served only to reinforce the notion that to be ‘human’ was superior to being anything else. The term ‘human’ became synonymous to the word ‘civilised’ and the power of the language grew.

To the western male, human’s were ‘us’, everyone else was ‘them’. Ancient Australian aboriginal elders, them. Mighty African tribal Chieftains, them. Wise Chinese emperors, them. Masterful Japanese samurai, them. For each to become human, they must westernize and then they would be civilized too.

But there was more powerful language still to come.

The rise of the term ‘rights’ (as it is used in ‘human rights’) came about through three major events. The establishment of the concept of nations (as defined by Francisco de Vitoria), the revolutions of England, France and America and the aftermath of the two World Wars. Each event was remedied via the use of ‘rights’ and all three events were European in origin. Now Europeans own not only the term ‘human’ but also the term ‘rights’. This was a very powerful position from which to play, and we played.

Humanity has just lived through a 70 year period post WWII when human rights has sculpted much of the globe. Liberalism and democracy have won the battle for hearts and minds and there is hardly a political regime to stand against the humanists now. Indeed, it is hard to imagine an alternative to humanism. Our rights have defeated nations and turned good people against their own gods. Cultures that do not agree with what human rights are or who do not subscribe to the values within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are automatically defined as bad or wrong. In effect, human rights (the rights that western men invented) are the greatest weapons the world has ever seen. If you don’t subscribe to them, you are not human and so you are destroyed without any expense, deployment of ground troops or loss of ports, roads and infrastructure that impedes trade with your new “ally”. But to a great many people, human rights directly contradict their own culture and so human rights pose a huge question to everyone “Be human or be loyal to my own culture?”.

As it is and has always been, just as our fortunes rise so they must decline. Western men are being bested by our own pupils. It is my belief that we are ourselves now the victim of our own strategy. Take the following three examples.

In today’s world, for some reason that evades me, to be liberal is to have green hair, thigh tattoos and a gender studies degree. I choose not be this thing and so the world will not see me as liberal but by the definitions of John Stuart Mill’s and Adam Smith I am the original liberal. Men have lost control of the word ‘liberal’ through our own weakness of tolerating corruptions of key words for the sake of tolerance. Now, I will avoid the term liberal just so I avoid association with green haired SJW’s. Now, too late, I realise I have lost a part of myself.

I love women but I will not applaud (nor will I stop them) them when they embrace having many meaningless sexual partners (which will be a series of soul destroying events for her and a series of pleasurable notches on the bed head for him) over her lifetime until happy families and stable marriage become unobtainable goals. I will not accept that hypergamy can serve the nation nor that there is natural equality between the sexes. Because of my beliefs, I will be told I can’t love women and must therefore be misogynist. So I suppose I must choose misogyny.

Social justice has become a dirty word among the right because of its connotations of wealth redistribution, feminism and welfare dependency. But I have a very strong sense of social justice. I happen to believe the Aristotle’s virtuous man is a just citizen and that it is socially just when he is rewarded based on merit or when a weak and lazy man receives little. This is a social justice theory but we have let the term ‘social justice’ be corrupted in our language.

We are told “be ‘liberal’ or be misogynist” and so, just to avoid being associated with SJW’s, we choose to be misogynists simply because we can’t vocalize a third option. Language is now used against us.

To disagree with feminism is not the same as being a savage. But to depart from a feminist world and live apart in a backward world where there is no culture, arts or language of its own will destroy men and make us real savages, which is bad. We can reject feminism but we should not reject the world. This means we must create a new one that is feminist free but not free from culture.

We must agree that the last 100 years has seen the word human mean ‘female too’ and we must agree that some women have had excellent successes in that time. Just like the successes that brought our European ancestors the hubris that to be ‘human’ was to be cilivised, the last 100 years has brought the notion that females must reside upon the throne 50% of the time and all efforts must be made to facilitate this. The destruction of old regimes to allow for the new regime will require a change of language and culture, ‘chairman’ must become ‘chairperson’. There is no stopping this now. If we are not bargaining at the table we will be dealt out of the new world. To bargain at the table we must have a culture and a history that all can see. This was the Australian aboriginal’s problem, they were left with no culture and therefore no seat at the table.

Let us learn the lessons that our former victims have taught us. Let us not go out like the Australian Aborigine, without a history or culture to hang our hat on. Let us own our own ‘otherness’ and become our own ‘us’ and make our opponents ‘them’.

For us to be a bona fide ‘us’, we must have a culture. We must have a history, a language and our own arts.

At present, it’s not that to be masculine is wrong and to be feminine is right, or vice versa. It is that masculine culture is stalling while feminine culture is flourishing. It is my opinion that a male who is the product of either a weak or stalled masculine culture, or a synthesized culture that has been approved by feminist overlords, will be more of an unhappy primitive male than a happy enlightened male and this should scare people. Masculine culture has conceded terms like liberal, social justice, misogynist, family, slut, rape, free speech, hate speech and honor to the ‘others’. These words might have been lost to us, and I don’t know that we’ll ever get them back but in their absence we must keep belonging to our communities and developing our own language and culture so we can still use the concepts even if the words are lost. TRP community, the Alt-right and MRA’s has been instrumental in this endeavor to date but they don’t accommodate all men.

Those of you who can create art must create art for us, our art. Those of you who would be neither SJW not misogynist but find a third option and learn to vocalize it. And all of us must create our own language so that our son’s walk in “our” footsteps, not us in “their’s”.